💬 sipa commented on pull request "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#discussion_r1550770682)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#discussion_r1550770817)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#discussion_r1550770899)
Done.

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on issue "Node shutting down immediately":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/809#issuecomment-2036016180)
Shouldn't the title of the issue be updated? Perhaps adding " _- root cause: incorrect proxy IP address input_" or something? It'll be more useful navigating thru the issues list I think.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: Bump timeouts in feature_index_prune and wallet_importdescriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29791#issuecomment-2036073972)
>As mentioned in the summary, running without --jobs=16 makes the tests succeed
>
Ok, this gives me a bit more confidence that this may just be a simple case of resource contention from high concurrency slowing things down. Omitting `--jobs` causes the default value of 4 jobs to be used. In general, IIRC jobs != threads of execution (since some tests run multiple nodes, etc.). I was also able to reproduce the failure of `feature_index_prune.py` with `--jobs=18` (on master).

> Your questi
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Run framework unit tests in parallel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29771#discussion_r1550988846)
> **Would you be ok with a simplified approach of writing all unit test output to stdout, with this output being shown when unit tests fail?**

Sure. That'd be fine as well

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Run framework unit tests in parallel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29771#discussion_r1550989523)
I was thinking about calling the script (passing) directly:

```
python3 ./test/functional/feature_framework_unit_tests.py

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Don't permit port in proxy IP option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/813#issuecomment-2036336106)
> I'd suggest to use a regex validator for the IP address, it's much simpler I think and the user won't be allow to enter any other symbols or chars (typo?) that aren't digits (plus user can't type more than 3 subnets separated by dots where currently you could and any symbols)

I'm not convinced that a large regex is "simpler" than checking if a ":" is in the string?

Thanks for the other suggestions, but I don't feel that interested in picking them here with the QML work going on, and them
...

⚠️ tajelp opened an issue: "Invalid port specified in -zmqpubrawtx when using IPC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29802)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

This error is being returned if IPC is specified instead of tpc:

> Error: Invalid port specified in -zmqpubrawtx: 'ipc:///root/snap/bitcoin-core/common/.bitcoin/bitcoind.tx.raw

### Expected behaviour

IPC should correctly work

### Steps to reproduce

```
# cat ~/snap/bitcoin-core/common/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf

server=1
rpcuser=<censored>
rpcpassword=<censored>
zmqpubhashtx=tcp://
...

👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#pullrequestreview-1979056335)
ACK 43e2f6d160b75e88b39777428c2c1892b962f394

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "AcceptMultipleTransactions: Fix workspace not being set as client_maxfeerate failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29735#discussion_r1551177145)
done

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "AcceptMultipleTransactions: Fix workspace not being set as client_maxfeerate failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29735#discussion_r1551177864)
oops yeah, done

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[WIP] ci: test secp256k1 MSAN asm annotations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29742#issuecomment-2036588259)
> Ready for bump now that https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1512 is merged.

Converted to a proper subtree bump.
Rewrote the PR description.

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "AcceptMultipleTransactions: Fix workspace not being set as client_maxfeerate failure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29735#pullrequestreview-1979232550)
ACK 14c86ba721e1a208c88ada133ba9e90e24724ea4

Verified the fuzz test catches this problem, seems to run fine with the changes. Thanks for accepting the suggestions.

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to latest master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29803)
Updates the libsecp256k1 subtree to https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/commit/4b77fec67a80af41a538b6195317229c77101f87.

Part of #29742. See that PR for more details, the particularly relevant changes are:
* https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1496
* https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1512

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to latest master":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29803#issuecomment-2036606192)
cc @real-or-random @jonasnick

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "guix: Remove another leftover from #29648"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29797)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Invalid port specified in -zmqpubrawtx when using IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29802#issuecomment-2036618828)
This was broken in #22087, but would be fixed by #27679.

🤔 real-or-random reviewed a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to latest master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29803#pullrequestreview-1979282880)
Concept ACK -- there's nothing on our side that speaks against updating

🤔 real-or-random reviewed a pull request: "[WIP] ci: test secp256k1 MSAN asm annotations"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29742#pullrequestreview-1979289744)
Concept ACK on removing `--with-asm`